Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >

Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend?

Posted: 12/26/2012 4:02 PM

Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


While I am happy with the Swisher contract I feel to many people are getting false hope that we will now spend on par with others like the Reds or Cards. If you compare Hafner's and Swishers contract plus the free agents lost this off season its basically a wash and the payroll should be very similar to last years.Now my question is do you think we will actually start spending  our division average of 90+ or maintain the payroll of the last few years?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/26/2012 4:17 PM

RE: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


I guess the question is, if their spending pattern is changing, what changed it? Once we know what changed it, then we know if it will continue.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/26/2012 4:28 PM

RE: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


The question is not will they spend it? The question is, will they spend it on right people?

Last edited 12/26/2012 4:29 PM by jason251213

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/26/2012 4:47 PM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 



Tribefan2003 wrote: While I am happy with the Swisher contract I feel to many people are getting false hope that we will now spend on par with others like the Reds or Cards. If you compare Hafner's and Swishers contract plus the free agents lost this off season its basically a wash and the payroll should be very similar to last years.Now my question is do you think we will actually start spending  our division average of 90+ or maintain the payroll of the last few years?
Do I think the Tribe will start spending $90 million beginning in 2014.  The answer is a qualified "yes."  Indeed, I'd be disappointed if they didn't/

This sounds like optimism but I assure you I'm not an ill-informed pessimist (the definition of an "optimist").

The Tribe claimed its 2012 budget with a $65 million player payroll projected a small loss at 2011 gate related revenue.

In 2014 the Tribe will have at least an additional $34 million in national and local TV broadcast rights.

Assuming the Tribe can increase gate related revenues to the 2011 level a $90 million payroll is doable.

If you are asking me whether the Tribe's spending in 2014 will be in line with its division rivals -- other than Detroit -- that is a much harder question because they too will be getting at least a $24 million bump from national rights.

At least two things will drive 2014 payroll.  The first will be what happens at the gate in 2013 and projected for 2014.  Two of the things that will drive this is how well the Tribe competes in 2013 and what happens to the local economy.

The second thing is how much, if any, of the net proceeds of STO's sale is invested in the Tribe (or alternatively if a minority owner comes in and how much, if any, of the proceeds are invested in the Tribe).

Some indication of what the future looks like might be known by the end of the off season.  As you correctly point out at this point after arbitration the Tribe payroll should be close to last year's.  However, the off season is not over and how much more the Tribe spends going forward might be an earlier indicator of 2014 spending.  Of course, if the Tribe were to trade Perez and Cabrera for prospects and pre-arb players payroll might still be at the 2012 level even if additional free agents are signed.  Moreover, failing to sign more free agents might not be the unwillingness to spend more but the inability to. 
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/26/2012 4:55 PM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


There is also the cash acquired in the sell off of STO.

But you also have to ask whether there are free agents available that make sense in terms of both ability to improve the roster long term and financial sense.

Folks have to realize that no matter how much money the Dolans are able and willing to spend, they arent going to compete for the elite FAs. Thats simply not in the cards, nor should it be. We arent going to have a payroll in which three or four players take up sixty percent of the payroll. Even at a payroll of $90 mil, we arent going to have a bunch of guys with Swisher level contracts.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/26/2012 5:11 PM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


I would guess that the cash from the sell off either goes in their pockets or to pay down debt for the team.

It probably helps either way.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/26/2012 6:13 PM

RE: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


I think 90% of the aggressive offseason approach can be summed up in three words:
1. Hafner
2. Grady
3. pfkaCarmona

That's plenty of dough off the books.

That being said, the price of players is rising, and as Jennifer said, I'd expect our payroll to slightly increase in coming years. However, that's more keeping up with the Jones' than anything.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/26/2012 7:10 PM

RE: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 



mooseahoy wrote: I think 90% of the aggressive offseason approach can be summed up in three words:
1. Hafner
2. Grady
3. pfkaCarmona

That's plenty of dough off the books.

That being said, the price of players is rising, and as Jennifer said, I'd expect our payroll to slightly increase in coming years. However, that's more keeping up with the Jones' than anything.
While you may well be right a point I've tried to make in a number of threads is it is premature to form a strong opinion until at least the off season ends because reportedly the Tribe is still in the market for a starter and a DH.  I would not be stunned if the final payroll number was at least $75 million nor would I be terribly surprised if it was close to $65 million.

A lot depends on the willingness of the Dolans to infuse additional capital.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/26/2012 7:25 PM

RE: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


I feel like the new money from national tv rights won't help much if everyone is getting it. it seems it will only raise the asking price that free agents will demand. No?

if the above is true, maybe it makes sense to spend big now for some free agents before the asking price goes through the roof. For example maybe it makes sense to give Lohse AND Marcum multi-year deals now rather than sign another pitcher next offseason. Just speculating. not saying we should do it necessarily.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/26/2012 7:54 PM

RE: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 



durmiente wrote: I feel like the new money from national tv rights won't help much if everyone is getting it. it seems it will only raise the asking price that free agents will demand. No?

if the above is true, maybe it makes sense to spend big now for some free agents before the asking price goes through the roof. For example maybe it makes sense to give Lohse AND Marcum multi-year deals now rather than sign another pitcher next offseason. Just speculating. not saying we should do it necessarily.

You make a valid point and I would love to see that happen, but don't really expect to see it.

As far as why they've spent this off season, it's several reasons imo. Number 1, of course is having Hafner, Grady and Choo off the books. Number 2 is the infuse of money via, TV rights and selling off STOs.

And the 3rd one I believe is that this last season the org took a big PR hit. Antonetti, gambled and signed a number of fringe players to small contracts (not to set off another firestorm but they were perceived as going cheap) in the hope that some would have good years. Unfortunately for him just about all his moves went bad and the fans weren't very happy and Dolan took some heat for it. I believe the moves they've made this winter were partly due to that bad PR they got.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:48 PM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


Who cares what it means. The team has made strides this winter to improve. I'm excited about that.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:41 AM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


I meant in lines with the other teams in our market Reds,Cards or atleast average which currently is at 90+ in our division or if this was merely swapping Hafner's contract for Swishers and no longer handing out contracts in that range. Do we even have enough money for a Marcum or are our founds dried up? Right now as it stands today are we much better then last year no. We swapped Choo and Swisher although Bauer helps we cannot count on him to be a star yet and Renyolds should help a little maybe 2 or 3 wins? So the way I am looking at it is we trade Cabbera and Perez and build around Swisher or We have to add another arm which is going to cost money.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/27/2012 2:00 AM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


I think it depends on what else they sign or don't sign before the end of the season + length of those contracts. 

It could very easily hit 90+ by 2014 if we extend a couple of our everyday players (Asdrubal,Masterson) without even signing big new FA's.

I'm not concerned with the bottom line budget numbers but rather where they put the money that they have.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/27/2012 4:18 AM

RE: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 



JenniferMarie wrote:
mooseahoy wrote: I think 90% of the aggressive offseason approach can be summed up in three words:
1. Hafner
2. Grady
3. pfkaCarmona

That's plenty of dough off the books.

That being said, the price of players is rising, and as Jennifer said, I'd expect our payroll to slightly increase in coming years. However, that's more keeping up with the Jones' than anything.
While you may well be right a point I've tried to make in a number of threads is it is premature to form a strong opinion until at least the off season ends because reportedly the Tribe is still in the market for a starter and a DH.  I would not be stunned if the final payroll number was at least $75 million nor would I be terribly surprised if it was close to $65 million.

A lot depends on the willingness of the Dolans to infuse additional capital.
True. Time will tell
Reply | Quote
  • Nomina
  • Member
  • 539 posts this site

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:54 AM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


Their willingness to go 4-5 yrs on a FA is probably more important and a bigger sign of change than the final payroll number.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 9:21 AM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


And it will be interesting to see if this offseason activity will have any effect on early ticket sales.  If the fans believe that the Indians are doing the right thing ownership would hope that generates more excitement and that leads to more advanced sales.  Or, will the fans wait until they see whether this spending leads to more wins?  At the end of the day, if Dolan spends more money, improves the product on the field, but gets no bump in attendance, it will be easy for him to revert back to justify not adding payroll in the future.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 5:49 PM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 


Reynolds contract is basically a wash with Grady's plus Damon.
Swisher's contract is basically a wash with Hafners plus Hannahan.
Bauer/Stubbs/Albers/Shaw plus 3 mill to the Reds about equals Choo/Sipp/Donald
Lowe's 5 mil, Kotchman's 4 mil and non-tenders such as Raffy Perez should more than cover all our Arb. raises.

We have added a lot of production in the process of getting rid of mostly dead wood, and we can reasonably expect some improvement from our younger players, so we are already a better team. However, other than the somewhat surprising willingness to go four years and concentrate our free agent dollars on one player, (Swisher), as opposed to a half-a dozen below replacement-level players, I have yet to see any evidence that our payroll is headed north. I like all the moves I have seen so far, but we need more.
For example-Eat a good chunk of Alfonso Soriano's contract so we don't give up any prospects, look at Nolasco and Morrison, kick the tires on Cliff Lee, go over slot for the third round pick and don't bring in another Tyler Nacquin, sign Rafael Soriano for  one year then flip Chris Perez for a LOOGY and a prospect- you get the idea.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/28/2012 12:26 AM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 



Tribefan2003 wrote: I meant in lines with the other teams in our market Reds,Cards or atleast average which currently is at 90+ in our division or if this was merely swapping Hafner's contract for Swishers and no longer handing out contracts in that range. Do we even have enough money for a Marcum or are our founds dried up? Right now as it stands today are we much better then last year no. We swapped Choo and Swisher although Bauer helps we cannot count on him to be a star yet and Renyolds should help a little maybe 2 or 3 wins? So the way I am looking at it is we trade Cabbera and Perez and build around Swisher or We have to add another arm which is going to cost money.

LOLwut? we added a probable 15-20 HR guy, a probable 20-25 HR guy and a probable 25-35 HR guy, plus one of the best young pitchers in all of baseball and didnt improve? even if Swisher, Stubbs and Reynolds only hit 60 HRs thats not an improvement ? LOL yeah ok
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/28/2012 12:29 AM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 



gomerhodge wrote: Reynolds contract is basically a wash with Grady's plus Damon.
Swisher's contract is basically a wash with Hafners plus Hannahan.
Bauer/Stubbs/Albers/Shaw plus 3 mill to the Reds about equals Choo/Sipp/Donald
Lowe's 5 mil, Kotchman's 4 mil and non-tenders such as Raffy Perez should more than cover all our Arb. raises.

We have added a lot of production in the process of getting rid of mostly dead wood, and we can reasonably expect some improvement from our younger players, so we are already a better team. However, other than the somewhat surprising willingness to go four years and concentrate our free agent dollars on one player, (Swisher), as opposed to a half-a dozen below replacement-level players, I have yet to see any evidence that our payroll is headed north. I like all the moves I have seen so far, but we need more.
For example-Eat a good chunk of Alfonso Soriano's contract so we don't give up any prospects, look at Nolasco and Morrison, kick the tires on Cliff Lee, go over slot for the third round pick and don't bring in another Tyler Nacquin, sign Rafael Soriano for  one year then flip Chris Perez for a LOOGY and a prospect- you get the idea.
LOLwut? Nolasco sucks, Lee is going to cost us NaQuin and Lindor/Brown, dont waste time on going overslot on a 3rd round pick, get quality picks at all picks, take another talent like NaQuin if you can and pass on Soriano, dont even give him the phone call
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/28/2012 1:04 AM

Re: Does Swisher Signing truly mean ownership will spend? 



Swisher33OSU wrote:
Tribefan2003 wrote: I meant in lines with the other teams in our market Reds,Cards or atleast average which currently is at 90+ in our division or if this was merely swapping Hafner's contract for Swishers and no longer handing out contracts in that range. Do we even have enough money for a Marcum or are our founds dried up? Right now as it stands today are we much better then last year no. We swapped Choo and Swisher although Bauer helps we cannot count on him to be a star yet and Renyolds should help a little maybe 2 or 3 wins? So the way I am looking at it is we trade Cabbera and Perez and build around Swisher or We have to add another arm which is going to cost money.

LOLwut? we added a probable 15-20 HR guy, a probable 20-25 HR guy and a probable 25-35 HR guy, plus one of the best young pitchers in all of baseball and didnt improve? even if Swisher, Stubbs and Reynolds only hit 60 HRs thats not an improvement ? LOL yeah ok
For me, it's not even that as much as it is the mass of dead weight we finally cut ties with:
- Grady
- Pronk
- pfkaCarmona

Plus, we weeded out the noneffectives:
- Kotchman
- Hannahan
- LF mess

And got rid of a guy who wanted no part of the organization:
- Choo


I think this will have a large impact on the clubhouse. There's a new feel to the team, and the Francona hiring ushers that in. A lot of the young guys are now established vets and I expect this team to be a LOT better, especially if we can spruce up the rotation.

Last edited 12/28/2012 1:04 AM by mooseahoy

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >